The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, overseeing the bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”), entered an order on July 2, 2009 (the “Bar Date Order”), establishing September 22, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) as the deadline for the filing of claims against the Debtors (the “Bar Date”).

On April 16, 2009 and April 22, 2009, General Growth Properties, Inc. (“GGP”) and certain of its subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), including many subsidiaries structured as special purpose entities (the “SPE Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order on Sept. 17, 2009, granting a motion filed by Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) to compel Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to continue to make payments to LBSF under an ISDA Master Agreement.

A Florida bankruptcy court, on Oct. 13, 2009, issued a 182-page decision after a 13-day trial, among other things, avoiding on fraudulent transfer grounds (a) secured subsidiary guarantees of $500 million and (b) $420 million pre-bankruptcy payments. In re Tousa, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-10928; Adv. P. 08-1435 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2009). The decision is on appeal to the district court.  

Relevance  

In a decision to be hailed by buyers of distressed debt and bankruptcy claims on the secondary loan market, on Oct. 15, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (the “Court”), in a fact-specific ruling, held that an assignment of claim does not violate New York’s champerty statute (forbidding trading in litigation claims) if the purpose of the assignment is to collect damages by means of a lawsuit for losses on a debt instrument in which the assignee holds a pre-existing proprietary interest. Trust for the Certificate Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on Nov. 5, 2009, that a creditor was entitled to its post-bankruptcy legal fees incurred on a pre-bankruptcy indemnity agreement. Ogle v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., __F.3d __, No. 09-0691-bk, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24329 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2009). Affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit explained that the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “interposes no bar . . . to recovery.” Id. at *8-9 (citing Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S.

On Nov. 10, 2009, a Pennsylvania district court held that secured creditors do not have an absolute right to credit bid1 their debt under the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) in an asset sale conducted pursuant to a “cramdown” plan of reorganization that proposes to provide the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Civil Action 09-00178 at 57 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2009). This decision is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Facts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held on Nov. 3, 2009, that a district court had improperly dismissed, on mootness grounds, an appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order confirming a reorganization plan. According to the Tenth Circuit, the appeal was reviewable because reversal of the plan confirmation order (1) would not unduly affect innocent third parties, and (2) would not undo any complex transactions.

On Jan. 25, 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) held that a trust deed provision reversing a priority of payment waterfall upon the bankruptcy of a credit support provider under a swap agreement is unenforceable under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

In a Jan. 20, 2010, opinion, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a group of investors who had together proposed a plan of reorganization for the debtor did not have to comply with the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (“Rule 2019”) In re Premier International Holdings, Inc., No. 09-12019 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 20, 2010) (Sontchi, J.) (“Six Flags”). In Six Flags, Judge Sontchi expressly disagreed with two prior decisions on the subject of Rule 2019 disclosure, one by Judge Mary K.